You gripe about Conservative derp. Start fixing the problem in your own backyard. The general American public will never accept a complete handgun ban, blanket registration of all firearms, or a repeal of the Second Amendment. Cope with it. You're better off pushing for expanded socialized healthcare or environmental policies: leftist things that may be controversial, but have more traction with the general public.

Also, stop using dead schookids as a plea to emotion. That's a logical fallacy, and I thought those of us in the Progressive community liked to focus on logic instead of emotion? We gripe when Republicans go "Think of the Children!", that means you can't use it either.

Just like the Right may derp about wanting to ban all abortion, and abolish all welfare, the Left derps about wanting to take everybodies gun away.

Yeah, Registration is the first step to confiscation. They can't take your guns if they don't know you have them. Too many times in US history has a local jurisdiction required gun registration, only to turn around a few years later and demand all those registered guns be handed in. "Fool me once. . ."

Yeah, I'm a Liberal and I'm pro-gun. Guess I'm no stereotype, but I'm a leftist who supports all civil rights, even the unpopular ones (although I'll admit, Fred Phelps tries my patience on First Amendment rights).

I am highly unconvinced that registration prevents any crimes. How could gun registration prevent a crime, really? Explain to me how gun registration could honestly prevent crimes instead of just enabling later gun confiscation?

TheJoe03:gimmegimme: TheJoe03: gimmegimme: TheJoe03: AssAsInAssassin: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

If there's one constant about gun nuts, it's that their over-reaching zeal enables lunatics to go on killing sprees. Then they blame everyone but the over-reaching gun nuts who defiled the 2nd Amendment and turned "a well regulated militia" into a mob of paranoid fanatics with delusions of persecution.

Go fark yourself. You are personally to blame for Newtown. You and all your verminous ilk who insist the Constitution says something it clearly does not say.

What gun control measure would have prevented these massacres, you crazy person? Blaming all gun owners for the death of children is pretty disgusting.

You're absolutely right. We must do nothing at all to confront the gun fetishism and the culture of violence in this country. The pro-gun side has done nothing in the past month to reinforce that these problems exist.

Care to point out to me where I said that?

So what measures would you take to alleviate the problems I pointed out?

War on poverty, end the war on drugs, improve our mental health systems, and improve background checks. You know, things that will actually work, improve our nation, and not attack our rights.

the ha ha guy:Xcott: How does that prevent the next Sandy Hook or VT shooting? The killer was a messed-up kid who took his own life, and probably didn't give a crap what his hypothetical prison sentence would be.

It won't, but it would put a significant dent in the ~8000 other firearm-related homicides each year.

Do you want gun reform that actually works on a national scale, or do you just want a knee-jerk reaction to whatever gun looks scary this week?

We can't have meaningful dialogue on guns in the United States. Because they devolve into silly "If you don't agree with me, then you must be at SOME extreme of the political spectrum" arguments which poorly reflect what people ACTUALLY believe.

As per the article - good. The unresponsible gun owners that don't want to register their weapons can go to jail where they belong when their unregistered weapons are exposed. If they choose to keep them hidden and never use them or have them seen in public or by a public officer, the goal was still accomplished.

In what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it? Before you answer, note that there is no charge under the NY law to register a weapon.

Maybe I was too subtle. The question isn't whether it prevents me from owning or firing my firearms. That's the argument you put forth but you're in error in believing that this is the issue. The issue, stated plainly, is that this law contravenes both the United States constitution via the 2nd Amendment wherein the language is clear and unambiguous ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" where an registry is a definite infringement to that right) and Article 2, Section 4 of the New York Civil Rights Law ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed"). A registry is an infringement no matter how much you'd like to color it otherwise. To you, it is a minor infringement but the degree of such isn't germane. Both constitutions say you can't do it.

As a parallel example, the city of Montgomery had a city bus policy in 1955. While everyone was free to ride the bus there were certain restrictions placed upon that freedom for some people. Turns out, lots of folks held the 14th Amendment in high regard and so laws that infringed upon the rights ensured by that amendment were unconstitutional. Everyone today looks back on that and says "damn, the constitution couldn't be more clear but they still made those laws and enforced them". They were wrong.

This law is even more so.

I don't see the leap in reasoning that makes registering firearms an infringement on using them.

the ha ha guy:Xcott: How does that prevent the next Sandy Hook or VT shooting? The killer was a messed-up kid who took his own life, and probably didn't give a crap what his hypothetical prison sentence would be.

It won't, but it would put a significant dent in the ~8000 other firearm-related homicides each year.

Do you want gun reform that actually works on a national scale, or do you just want a knee-jerk reaction to whatever gun looks scary this week?

Gun control that works on a national scale would be banning all guns. You don't really want that either.

LavenderWolf:muck4doo: LavenderWolf: jehovahs witness protection: muck4doo: I like how authoritarians are now all for having to register practicing a right. I bet these same asstards were against having to show ID while voting.

DING DING DING....WE HAVE A WINNER!

Because voting and owning guns are the same thing! A vote is just as lethal as a bullet! And one day we'll be able to throw off the shackles of our vehicle registration laws.

One is a right, the other actually isn't. Hard to believe, I know.

In what way are voting and unrestricted movement not rights?

justtray:muck4doo: LavenderWolf: jehovahs witness protection: muck4doo: I like how authoritarians are now all for having to register practicing a right. I bet these same asstards were against having to show ID while voting.

DING DING DING....WE HAVE A WINNER!

Because voting and owning guns are the same thing! A vote is just as lethal as a bullet! And one day we'll be able to throw off the shackles of our vehicle registration laws.

One is a right, the other actually isn't. Hard to believe, I know.

Please, do elaborate.

If I'm wrong tell me. I don't remember the right to vote in the Constitution. If I'm wrong I'd like to be corrected so i don't make the same mistake again.

I myself am a gun owner, that said it doesn't matter if you know about guns or not, gun crime affects us all. Should we allow only drug users to make drug laws?

No, you've missed the point. It doesn't matter if you *own* guns, it matters if you *know* anything about them. People who don't know magazines from clips, describe hollow point ammunition as "armor piercing", or consider a thumbhole stock the mark of a extraordinarily dangerous weapon have no business designing gun control measures.

Sure, we need people knowledgeable about guns to help craft laws. But others can participate in this too. You don't need to be a gun expert to discuss the need for background checks. On top of that lawmakers make plenty of laws covering topics they may not be personally familiar with, but usually they bring in experts to help them understand the issues first. Do you have to be a rapist or rape victim to craft sex crimes laws? No, but it's probably good to hear from some people knowledgeable about the topic.

muck4doo:LavenderWolf: muck4doo: LavenderWolf: jehovahs witness protection: muck4doo: I like how authoritarians are now all for having to register practicing a right. I bet these same asstards were against having to show ID while voting.

DING DING DING....WE HAVE A WINNER!

Because voting and owning guns are the same thing! A vote is just as lethal as a bullet! And one day we'll be able to throw off the shackles of our vehicle registration laws.

One is a right, the other actually isn't. Hard to believe, I know.

In what way are voting and unrestricted movement not rights?

justtray: muck4doo: LavenderWolf: jehovahs witness protection: muck4doo: I like how authoritarians are now all for having to register practicing a right. I bet these same asstards were against having to show ID while voting.

DING DING DING....WE HAVE A WINNER!

Because voting and owning guns are the same thing! A vote is just as lethal as a bullet! And one day we'll be able to throw off the shackles of our vehicle registration laws.

One is a right, the other actually isn't. Hard to believe, I know.

Please, do elaborate.

If I'm wrong tell me. I don't remember the right to vote in the Constitution. If I'm wrong I'd like to be corrected so i don't make the same mistake again.

I don't see a right to privacy in the Constitution, but you seem to be wanting to assert that particular right when it comes to your firearms.

justtray:Gun control that works on a national scale would be banning all guns. You don't really want that either.

Much of the problems with gun crime currently stem from problems completely unrelated to the ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens. Banning guns entirely would not solve a damn thing, and would be a logistic impossibility.

gimmegimme:TheJoe03: gimmegimme: TheJoe03: gimmegimme: TheJoe03: AssAsInAssassin: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

If there's one constant about gun nuts, it's that their over-reaching zeal enables lunatics to go on killing sprees. Then they blame everyone but the over-reaching gun nuts who defiled the 2nd Amendment and turned "a well regulated militia" into a mob of paranoid fanatics with delusions of persecution.

Go fark yourself. You are personally to blame for Newtown. You and all your verminous ilk who insist the Constitution says something it clearly does not say.

What gun control measure would have prevented these massacres, you crazy person? Blaming all gun owners for the death of children is pretty disgusting.

You're absolutely right. We must do nothing at all to confront the gun fetishism and the culture of violence in this country. The pro-gun side has done nothing in the past month to reinforce that these problems exist.

Care to point out to me where I said that?

So what measures would you take to alleviate the problems I pointed out?

War on poverty, end the war on drugs, improve our mental health systems, and improve background checks. You know, things that will actually work, improve our nation, and not attack our rights.

justtray:As per the article - good. The unresponsible gun owners that don't want to register their weapons can go to jail where they belong when their unregistered weapons are exposed. If they choose to keep them hidden and never use them or have them seen in public or by a public officer, the goal was still accomplished.

And what happens when this doesn't reduce gun violence? Find more ways to make otherwise law-abiding gun owners into criminals?

Funny, you statists sure did shriek and wring your hands when the Patriot Act was enacted....

muck4doo:LavenderWolf: muck4doo: LavenderWolf: jehovahs witness protection: muck4doo: I like how authoritarians are now all for having to register practicing a right. I bet these same asstards were against having to show ID while voting.

DING DING DING....WE HAVE A WINNER!

Because voting and owning guns are the same thing! A vote is just as lethal as a bullet! And one day we'll be able to throw off the shackles of our vehicle registration laws.

One is a right, the other actually isn't. Hard to believe, I know.

In what way are voting and unrestricted movement not rights?

justtray: muck4doo: LavenderWolf: jehovahs witness protection: muck4doo: I like how authoritarians are now all for having to register practicing a right. I bet these same asstards were against having to show ID while voting.

DING DING DING....WE HAVE A WINNER!

Because voting and owning guns are the same thing! A vote is just as lethal as a bullet! And one day we'll be able to throw off the shackles of our vehicle registration laws.

One is a right, the other actually isn't. Hard to believe, I know.

Please, do elaborate.

If I'm wrong tell me. I don't remember the right to vote in the Constitution. If I'm wrong I'd like to be corrected so i don't make the same mistake again.

Unrestricted personal access to firearms certainly isn't. Maybe you could point out where it is, specifically?

justtray:As per the article - good. The unresponsible gun owners that don't want to register their weapons can go to jail where they belong when their unregistered weapons are exposed. If they choose to keep them hidden and never use them or have them seen in public or by a public officer, the goal was still accomplished.

justtray:The unresponsible gun owners that don't want to register their weapons can go to jail where they belong when their unregistered weapons are exposed. If they choose to keep them hidden and never use them or have them seen in public or by a public officer, the goal was still accomplished.

BronyMedic:justtray: Gun control that works on a national scale would be banning all guns. You don't really want that either.

Much of the problems with gun crime currently stem from problems completely unrelated to the ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens. Banning guns entirely would not solve a damn thing, and would be a logistic impossibility.

Except that it does and has worked in nearly every other 1st world country on the planet. Though you are right, in the short run in the US, it would be very difficult to control the supply. Which is why I'm an advocate of taxation to limit the supply using a free market approach. Regardless, bans do work in the long run, but they unquestionably restrict freedom.

muck4doo:AssAsInAssassin: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

If there's one constant about gun nuts, it's that their over-reaching zeal enables lunatics to go on killing sprees. Then they blame everyone but the over-reaching gun nuts who defiled the 2nd Amendment and turned "a well regulated militia" into a mob of paranoid fanatics with delusions of persecution.

Go fark yourself. You are personally to blame for Newtown. You and all your verminous ilk who insist the Constitution says something it clearly does not say.

ko_kyi:justtray: The unresponsible gun owners that don't want to register their weapons can go to jail where they belong when their unregistered weapons are exposed. If they choose to keep them hidden and never use them or have them seen in public or by a public officer, the goal was still accomplished.

In what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it? Before you answer, note that there is no charge under the NY law to register a weapon.

Maybe I was too subtle. The question isn't whether it prevents me from owning or firing my firearms. That's the argument you put forth but you're in error in believing that this is the issue. The issue, stated plainly, is that this law contravenes both the United States constitution via the 2nd Amendment wherein the language is clear and unambiguous ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" where an registry is a definite infringement to that right) and Article 2, Section 4 of the New York Civil Rights Law ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed"). A registry is an infringement no matter how much you'd like to color it otherwise. To you, it is a minor infringement but the degree of such isn't germane. Both constitutions say you can't do it.

The law already requires that all fully automatic weapons be registered, and a fee paid yearly to continue to own them. The Supreme Court held that the only parties constitutionally protected against registering such firearms were convicted felons, not as a violation of the 2nd amendment, but of the 5th, as they would have to admit to a felony to register the weapon.

Let's let that sink in. The Supreme Court has already held that firearm registration requirements are not unconstitutional.

So, I ask again, given that the constitutional argument was already voided by the Supreme Court, in what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it?

ko_kyi:justtray: The unresponsible gun owners that don't want to register their weapons can go to jail where they belong when their unregistered weapons are exposed. If they choose to keep them hidden and never use them or have them seen in public or by a public officer, the goal was still accomplished.

What was the goal again?

To reduce the available supply of guns, and therefore crimes committed by guns.

Securitywyrm:Securitywyrm: chuggernaught: xynix: cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.

Wow I didn't realize cars where in the constitution.. ? Which amendment is that covered under anyway? It's certainly not in the bill of rights. Guess your constitution is a more updated version that the one I'm used to. Is the right to have an internet in there too?

Internet? See 1st Amendment. You know. The 1st one. The one that actually keeps us free. Not the next one down that has turned into the playground for greedy, petulant children.

Sorry, 1st amendment only applies to the printing press and speaking on a street corner.If the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to modern 'arms', then the 1st amendment doesn't apply to modern 'speech.'

California and the SKS

California passes law requiring all SKS owners to 'register' this type of weapon.California then passes new law banning SKS ownership, and has a 'hit list' of people who now own something 'illegal.' Especially in a place like New York, that's 'sufficient cause' for a search warrant shortly after the second law gets passed.

How about this for a god damn reasonable compromise

"No law shall restrict the right of a law abiding citizen to bear arms of greater restriction than those placed upon law enforcement." There you go. Police can have a handgun? I can have a handgun. Police can have an AR-15? I can have an AR 15. Police can't have a rocket launcher? Guess what, I CAN'T have a rocket launcher.Unless you want the police to be better armed than law-abiding citizens, which indicates the police are there to oppress rather than protect.

Question concerning the rocket launcher provision: are the just out and out banned from private ownership, or do they remain NFA items?

Cheviot:The law already requires that all fully automatic weapons be registered, and a fee paid yearly to continue to own them. The Supreme Court held that the only parties constitutionally protected against registering such firearms were convicted felons, not as a violation of the 2nd amendment, but of the 5th, as they would have to admit to a felony to register the weapon.

justtray:Except that it does and has worked in nearly every other 1st world country on the planet.

Except that's completely not true in any form or fashion. Firearms are still legal to own in even the UK. What they did, on the other hand, was fix a LOT of problems completely unrelated to the private ownership of firearms.

justtray:Though you are right, in the short run in the US, it would be very difficult to control the supply. Which is why I'm an advocate of taxation to limit the supply using a free market approach

It would be IMPOSSIBLE to control the existing supply, and would severely damage the American economy - especially small businesses, which most gun shops are. There are 300 MILLION, estimated, Firearms in private hands of Law Abiding Citizens in the United States currently. You will never be able to confiscate even a fraction for it.

And a "Free Market" Approach? People aren't even getting a 10th of the worth of their firearms at turnins. Look at the pictures they post of them. Many of the weapons that people turn in are antiques, or are VERY rare firearms that would otherwise be worth thousands of dollars.

justtray:Regardless, bans do work in the long run, but they unquestionably restrict freedom.

A ban on firearm ownership would be blatantly unconstitutional according to the SCOTUS, and would require an amendment to the US Constitution. Good luck with that.

muck4doo:justtray: As per the article - good. The unresponsible gun owners that don't want to register their weapons can go to jail where they belong when their unregistered weapons are exposed. If they choose to keep them hidden and never use them or have them seen in public or by a public officer, the goal was still accomplished.

Spoken like a true authoritarian douchebag

Why? Because I'm not soft on crime?

Please be clear so I can understand, because frankly, you are far more authoritarian than I am. Magnitudes so. You just can't be unbias when it comes to your pet hobby.

justtray:ko_kyi: justtray: The unresponsible gun owners that don't want to register their weapons can go to jail where they belong when their unregistered weapons are exposed. If they choose to keep them hidden and never use them or have them seen in public or by a public officer, the goal was still accomplished.

What was the goal again?

To reduce the available supply of guns, and therefore crimes committed by guns.

Xcott:sweet-daddy-2: The 2nd ammendment is intended as a deterant to our government becoming tyrannical.

It was not intended to let a bunch of derp-tards overthrow or resist a democratically elected representative government, just because they don't like the way the people voted.

Nevermind that the 2nd amendment is ostensibly written "for the security of a free state." It's there so you can defend your country, not so you can attack it or shoot cops and American soldiers.

/And what is it with traitors wrapping themselves in the constitution, anyway? Does that even make sense?

In almost two years on FARK I have laughed,cried,rolled my eyes,and facepalmed.But never have I become angry.That you should call me a traitor is loathsome.But forget that,your post is full of nonsense.Your misconceptions and lack of imagination render you a danger to a free society.

Amos Quito:These handy stats from the FBI might help some of the SHARPER kids in the class understand why BANNING SCARY ASSAULT weapons is actually nothing more than an appeal to EMOTION - a flaccid jerk-off.

And owning them is an appeal to emotion too, since they're nothing but a dangerous consumer product. Oh, they're MORE than that? Like, they're symbols all the things that you guys keep blithering on about---your freedoms and your rights and the tyranny of the government and 'from my cold dead hands!' Right?

No, they're dangerous consumer products (and toys) that are probably less regulated than any other product that can easily kill so many people. That's all they are. Funny how they aren't treated that way by everyone. You'd think that some group or agency had imbued them with so much emotional symbolism that certain people have trouble seeing them for what they really are. But I"m sure it has nothing to do with emotions.

muck4doo:Harry Knutz: I don't see a right to privacy in the Constitution, but you seem to be wanting to assert that particular right when it comes to your firearms.

Hey asshole -- you're the one trying to invalidate the comparison between voting and gun rights by saying there is no enumerated voting right in the Constitution. Yet you are also the one saying you have an absolute right to privacy when it comes to your firearms, a right (privacy) which is also not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. So which is it? Are rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution actually rights, like voting, or are they not rights?

LavenderWolf:I don't see the leap in reasoning that makes registering firearms an infringement on using them.

You have to register to vote, how is this different?

Indeed. A good question. So ask yourself, what does a voter registry seek to address and whose interests does that serve? Voting is the process by which the representatives who comprise our government are chosen. Those representatives have the power to change the very fundamental nature of government. Therefore, I'd suggest that a voter registration serves the interests of the government in that such ostensibly ensures that only citizens of the country can exercise their right whose product is the formation of the government.

Since a voter registry serves the interests of the government, whom then do you assume a firearms registry serves?

There's that line of thought but there's also the very stark difference that firearms were addressed specifically in the Bill of Rights while the word "vote" (or any derivative of the word) is not. In fact, our current voting laws were an amalgam of the 14th, 15th, 19th and 26th amendments. In other words, it wasn't strongly defined by the framers and has required updates and revisions more than once.

In fact, if those who'd like to make such adjustments to the the rights explicitly assured citizens by the 2nd Amendment would like to follow the same path (constitutional amendment), I'd have no argument with such efforts. Absent that, this law slams face first into the stark language of the 2nd as is.

pedrop357:Cheviot: The law already requires that all fully automatic weapons be registered, and a fee paid yearly to continue to own them. The Supreme Court held that the only parties constitutionally protected against registering such firearms were convicted felons, not as a violation of the 2nd amendment, but of the 5th, as they would have to admit to a felony to register the weapon.